Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 82.9 | 80.1 |
| Basic Information | |
| Samsung | |
| -- | Android 8.0 Oreo |
| 2019-10-24 | 2020-04-04 |
| 6.31 x 2.96 x 0.32 inches | 6.24 x 3.18 x 0.56 inches |
| 6.81 ounces | 9.03 ounces |
| Clearly white, Just black and Oh so orange | Black |
| Aluminum and Glass (Corning Gorilla Glass 5) | Plastic |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| $ 487.00 | $ 1105.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 6.3 inches | 5.1 inches |
| 3040 x 1440 pixels | 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) |
| OLED | -- |
| 534 pixels per inch | 576 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.8 | 8.9 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 SM8150 chipset | Samsung Exynos 9810 chipset |
| Kryo 485, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 2840 MHz) processor | Exynos M3 and ARM Cortex-A55, 64-bit, 10 nm (Octa-Core 2700 MHz) processor |
| 6 GB RAM | 4 GB RAM |
| Adreno 640 GPU | Mali-G72 MP18 GPU |
| 9.63 | 9.45 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 64 GB internal memory |
| No SD card slot | microSDXC (up to 512 GB) external memory slot |
| 7.7 | 11.74 |
| Camera | |
| 12.20 MP + 8.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 8.00 MP |
| f/1.70 aperture | f/1.50 aperture |
| 28.00mm focal length | -- |
| 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) video resolution |
| 1280 x 720 (240 fps) (HD) slow motion video | -- |
| 9.79 | 8.14 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA | LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM, Dual SIM | Nano SIM |
| 6.7 | 6.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3700mAh Battery | 4500mAh Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| Wireless Charging | -- |
| 5.68 | 6.32 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 5.0 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| -- | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
The Google Pixel 4 XL is a little bit better than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro, getting an 82.9 score against 80.1. Google Pixel 4 XL's body is a lot thinner and lighter than the Galaxy XCover FieldPro, even though both were released with only a few months difference. Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro features a bit better looking screen than Google Pixel 4 XL, because although it has a little bit smaller screen and a little worse resolution of 1440 x 2560 pixels, it also counts with a just a little greater amount of pixels in each inch in the screen.
Galaxy XCover FieldPro has a very superior storage to install applications and games or saving photos and videos than Google Pixel 4 XL, and although they both have exactly the same 64 GB internal memory, the Galaxy XCover FieldPro also has a SD extension slot that admits up to 512 GB. The Google Pixel 4 XL features a bit better processing power than Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro, and although they both have 8 CPU cores, the Google Pixel 4 XL also has 2 GB more RAM memory.
Google Pixel 4 XL shoots much better photos and videos than Galaxy XCover FieldPro, because although it has a tinier aperture which is not recommended for low light photos and video, and they both have a 0.39 inches sensor, the Google Pixel 4 XL also counts with a higher 12.2 MP resolution camera in the back and a much better video resolution.
Samsung Galaxy XCover FieldPro features longer battery life than Google Pixel 4 XL, because it has a 4500mAh battery size against 3700mAh.
Google Pixel 4 XL is not only the best phones of the ones we are comparing, but it's also a bargain compared to the other phones.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.